We all have private interests.

People pursuing their private interests – individually or as a group – is what drives progress and innovation. But our private interests should never trump the common good.

Private interests usurping the public good is privatization. Privatization is bad. It undermines democracy and progress.

Encouraging the pursuit of private interests while avoiding privatization is a core challenge for our economic and political democracy. In pursuing their private interests, individuals and organizations often claim their interests promote the common good, while the interests of those they disagree with don’t. Politics derives, in part, from conflicting claims of whose private interests better align with the common good.

We see this regularly in our debates over how best to improve public education.

As a long-time teacher union leader, I sold financial services, insurance and advocacy services to teachers working for school districts. Therefore, maximizing the number of teachers employed by school districts served my business interests. Our union continuously asserted that more teachers working for school districts served the common good, as did higher teacher salaries and benefits. Our favorite marketing slogan was, “Teachers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions.”

Our union’s political and marketing strategy was to tie the private interests of district teachers to a greater common good (i.e., the welfare of children). Of course, the private interests of teachers are often – but not always – tied to children’s interest, so this was, and still is, an effective strategy.

Teacher unions use a similar political strategy when attacking school choice programs that empower students and teachers to attend schools not covered by union contracts. The unions accuse these schools of furthering privatization. As the National Education Association recently stated about charter schools not under union contracts: “We oppose the creation of charter schools for the purpose of privatization.”

Teacher unions are often criticized – unfairly in my opinion – for advocating for the private interests of district teachers. (more…)

One of the arguments I hear from people determined to limit school choice options is that private companies shouldn’t be involved in the business of educating our kids. Activists against accountability rail against corporations that administer tests. Charter school opponents argue that for-profit companies are trying to profit from our children. Anti-choice proponents label those of us involved in school choice as conspirators in an effort to privatize public education.

The truth is, numerous companies conduct legitimate and valuable business with our public schools. These entities produce textbooks, assessments, curriculum guides, software, and so much more. Schools could not effectively educate students without these supplemental tools and supplies.

But for the sake of argument, let’s put aside those facts and consider this:

Like thousands of other kids across the country, my own children benefit from the involvement of a huge, international conglomerate, an important player in one of this country’s most popular magnet programs - the International Baccalaureate program.

According to its website, “the IB works with 3,665 schools in 146 countries to offer the four IB programmes to approximately 1,133,000 students.”

How’s that for outside involvement?

My children attend an IB program at Williams Middle School in Tampa, Fla. I’ve been both a member of the school’s PTA and an elected officer for the past three years. As such, I’ve never heard a single parent complain about the fact that a foreign company is operating in Hillsborough County schools, nor have I heard anyone complain about lack of local control. In fact, parents aren’t complaining at all. They are lining up to get their kids into the program. Many don’t even know the background of this Geneva-based organization and even fewer seem to care.

All they know is the program works for their kids.

That's what matters. (more…)

Editor’s note: This guest post is by Chris Lubienski, professor of education policy at the University of Illinois, where he is director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education. He is at twitter.com/CLub_edu

Some social justice advocates are quite enthralled with the possibilities of school choice. While district and enrollment boundaries reflect segregated residential patterns in the U.S., choice allows families to select schools across these artificial barriers, eradicating an important institutional impediment to equity. Moreover, schools then must compete to attract students, just like businesses strive to attract customers.

Charter schools reflect these ideals. It’s worth remembering that some of the early adopters of this innovation were progressive educators frustrated by the disservice that district-run public schools were doing to marginalized children. Charter schools embody the advantages of choice: giving parents alternatives, creating competition with public school districts, and offering the possibility of more socially integrated education based on interest, not race or residence. Compared to, say, vouchers, charters are the choice policy most favored by liberals. (Of course, charters also are embraced by conservative market advocates.)

Since the charter movement began, there have been debates about whether charter schools represent privatization. The recent issue of the Oxford Review of Education, which focuses on privatization, education and social justice, considers such questions and the equity implications.

In the classic sense of the term, it’s difficult to argue that charter schools “privatize” public education. Unlike, say, the transfer of state-run industries to private owners in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s, ownership of public schools is generally not being shifted to private hands. In fact, one could argue the opposite is happening, as some private schools have opted into the publicly funded system to become charter schools, and many families have left tuition-based private schools for “free” taxpayer-funded charter schools.

Yet it’s also difficult to ignore the large-scale shift in American educational governance. Within a few short years, large swaths of urban systems run by elected school boards have been transferred to private (for-profit and non-profit) management groups. In Los Angeles, 100,000 students are now in charter schools.  More than 1 in 3 public school students in Detroit, Kansas City and the District of Columbia now attend privately run charter schools. Policymakers are aggressively shutting down Chicago’s neighborhood public schools and inviting in private charter operators. Louisiana embraced charter schools as the primary reform model for re-making public education in post-Katrina New Orleans, where some 80 percent of students now attend charter schools. This is a remarkable record for a school model that didn’t exist 25 years ago.

So in this broader view, it would seem charters serve as a vehicle for moving governance of public education away from public control. Moreover, the charter movement is serving as the primary entry point for private investment seeking to reconfigure public education into a site for profit-making. (more…)

For those who dismiss the potential upside of for-profits in education, Rick Hess asks them to consider virtually every other aspect of their lives.

"Think about other big investments people make: their house, their car, their tablet or smartphone," wrote Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, in a live chat on redefinED today. "If you told folks that they could get a house or car made by a nonprofit, they wouldn't think it was better - odds are, they'd look at you like you were nuts."

"Fact is, in most of American life, something being a for-profit is generally regarded as a good thing - and government-provided services are frequently regarded as mediocre, or suspect. It's not immediately clear to me that it ought to be expected to be different in education."

We asked Hess to join us because he has co-edited a new book on for-profits in education, “Private Enterprise and Public Education.” But over the course of an hour, he weighed in on a wide range of topics. Among the highlights:

On Jeb Bush, his presidential ambitions and Common Core: "Jeb's got a remarkable track record on education. But, especially in GOP primaries, his full-throated backing of Common Core could trump the rest."

On President Obama and his administration's lawsuit against vouchers in Louisiana: "It's a good move if Obama is trying to score points with the teacher unions and traditional education establishment, or if he's trying to extend the reach of the federal government in education. It's a bad move for the affected kids in Louisiana or if he's interested in trying to claim bipartisan support for his education agenda."

On Florida, Common Core and PARCC: "I think it's likely Florida will drop PARCC. Will be interesting to see what follows. ... This is the fascinating thing about the Common Core; for it to deliver on its promise, a ton of stuff has to go right. For it to not deliver, only a couple little things have to go south."

On a criticism school choice supporters should take to heart: Don't dismiss suburban parents who don't want their schools to invite in low-performing students through choice plans. "Choice advocates have denounced such parents and communities, and even implied they're racist. It might be useful to recognize that they've worked hard, played by the rules, and sought to provide their kids a good education ... Empathetic reform would start by taking these issues seriously, and asking how to frame a win-win agenda."

You can replay the chat here:

Nothing gets critics of school choice and education reform more riled up than the specter of privatization. The response from Rick Hess: It’s complicated. For-profits in education can bring problems, he says. But they can also be a big help.

Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is co-editor (along with Michael B. Horn of the Christensen Institute) of a new book on the subject, “Private Enterprise and Public Education.” He’ll be our guest next week, in a live chat, to talk about it.

“Of course, the record of private ventures in education, as in other sectors, is mixed. It’s no wiser to romanticize for-profit providers than to demonize them,” says the book’s introduction. But, it continues, “For-profit enterprises have brought innovative power to an array of sectors. Given sensible policies and quality-control mechanisms, the particular strengths of for-profits can make them an invaluable part of the education tapestry.”

The chat isn’t limited to the book. Among many other hats, Hess is executive editor of EducationNext and author of the “Straight Up” blog at Education Week. He frequently weighs in on a wide range of ed topics, and doesn’t fit neatly into anybody’s ed reform box. So, ask away.

It’ll help to send some questions in advance. You can post them here, or on the redefinED facebook page, or tweet them to us @redefinedonline.

To participate in the chat, just come back to the blog on Monday, Sept. 9 at 1:30 p.m. You’ll have a full hour to ask away.

A Miami Herald story this week about the political contributions of teachers unions and for-profit education companies in Florida offers another opportunity to consider the term “privatization.”

The word has become a potent weapon in debates about the continuing customization of public education. But it’s being misused, and needs to be accurately defined so we can have a more meaningful dialogue about the best way forward.

Herald reporter Kathleen McGrory devoted most of her story to the political contributions of charter and virtual school interests. After noting the total contributions from those interests, she framed the piece this way: “Some observers say the big dollars foreshadow the next chapter of a fierce fight in Tallahassee: the privatization of public education.”

McGrory only briefly noted that those contributions pale in comparison to the donations from teachers unions, which are private corporations that sell memberships to teachers employed by school districts. According to the story, a variety of for-profit education interests, including those in the higher ed realm, collectively contributed $1.8 million in this election cycle. Meanwhile, national, state and local teachers unions kicked in $3.2 million.

The Herald story seemed to suggest that teachers unions are not private interests, which is false. And it listed this season’s top private contributor as Academica, the Miami-based charter school company, even though teachers unions contributed far more than the company did.

Privatization occurs when government allows private interests – in whatever form they take – to usurp the public good. Hopefully, the millions put into Florida political campaigns by teachers unions will not cause elected officials to put teacher concerns above those of the public good.

This privatization would be bad for everyone, including teachers.

Trying to compete with teachers unions for influence. The Miami Herald looks at growing political contributions from charter and virtual school interests, and frames the story this way: “Some observers say the big dollars foreshadow the next chapter of a fierce fight in Tallahassee: the privatization of public education.” Last Friday on redefinED, Doug Tuthill argued that the term “privatization,” as typically used in ed debates, is misleading.

Florida Supreme Court and vouchers. Two separate columns in recent days cited the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision to overturn vouchers as a reason behind efforts to convince voters to deny the retention of three justices. South Florida Sun-Sentinel columnist Michael Mayo here. UF law professor Joe Little in the Tallahassee Democrat here.

State Board of Education is wrong. So says the Tampa Bay Times, in this editorial about the board’s decision to set race-based achievement goals that include steeper rates of progress for low-income and minority students. More coverage in the Orlando Sentinel here.

Complaints about private school in Pasco. WTSP-Ch. 10 talks to parents who say officials are doctoring tests and report cards at Zephyrhills Christian Academy, a private school that accepts McKay vouchers for disabled students.

Superintendents and tax-credit scholarships. St. Johns County Superintendent Joe Joyner relays his concerns to the Florida Times Union.

New teacher evals cause angst in Pinellas. Tampa Bay Times story here.

Voucher tsunami. (This story from the Topeka Capital-Journal is a couple weeks old, but I didn’t see it until this weekend.) A leading state lawmaker in Kansas, Rep. Marc Rhoades, says vouchers are on their way to the Sunflower State, and he references programs in Milwaukee and Florida: “In my opinion, it’s like a tidal wave that’s coming, and I don’t know that the education establishment can withstand it forever.”

Public education is implemented by private entities - textbook publishers, teachers, building contractors, software developers, teachers unions, parents - with private concerns. Privatization occurs when government allows these private concerns to usurp the public good.

Republicans often blame teachers unions for privatization, but these criticisms are unfair. For more than 15 years, I was a teachers union leader responsible for helping negotiate teacher employment contracts with school boards. In these negotiations, I was legally obligated to represent the private interests of teachers. Albert Shanker, a long-time national teacher union leader, was often criticized for stating his job was to represent teachers and not students or the public, but he was simply asserting a legal fact. Teachers unions sell memberships to teachers and in exchange are legally required to represent them. School boards are responsible for representing the public. If a school board signs a union contract that promotes privatization by allowing the private interests of teachers to trump the public good, that’s the school board’s fault.

Democrats, on the other hand, like to blame for-profit corporations for privatizing public education, but these criticisms are also off target. For-profit corporations have the same legal obligation as teachers unions to advocate on behalf of their stakeholders. If a school board negotiates a contract that puts the interests of a for-profit corporation above the public good, again, that’s the school board’s fault.

School boards also further privatization when they respond to parental choice by acting like private corporations more concerned with protecting their business interests than the public’s interest.

In Indiana last week, The Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne reported that its local school board discussed how it could more successfully compete for students against charter and private schools. Board members were unhappy about potential losses in market share “because losing students means losing funds.” Board member Steve Corona worried about competition from charter and private schools putting district-owned schools “out of business,” and board President Mark GiaQuinta said the district needed to do a better job making the case against charter schools.

Here in Florida, the Florida Times-Union reported last week that school board members in Duval County rejected two charter school applications because they feared losing additional market share in district-owned schools that were already losing enrollment.

Similar discussions are occurring at school board meetings around the country. (more…)